O'Dea v. Bell

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

O'Dea v. Bell

242 A.D.2d 349, 661 N.Y.S.2d 265, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8376

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedAugust 20, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 242 A.D.2d 349 (O'Dea v. Bell) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

O'Dea v. Bell, 242 A.D.2d 349, 661 N.Y.S.2d 265, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8376 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding to invalidate petitions designating Robert A. Bell as a candidate in a primary election to be held on [350]*350September 9, 1997, for the nomination of the Republican Party as its candidate for the public office of Member of the City Council of the City of New York for the 39th Council District, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Barasch, J.), entered August 14, 1997, which granted the application.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, the application is denied, the proceeding is dismissed, and the Board of Elections of the City of New York is directed to restore the name of Robert A. Bell to the appropriate ballot.

The Supreme Court erred in invalidating all of the signatures witnessed by a certain Commissioner of Deeds. The testimony adduced at trial supported the finding that the Commissioner failed to take the oath of three of the 146 signatories. These three signatures were properly invalidated (see, Matter of Boyle v New York City Bd. of Elections, 185 AD2d 953; Matter of Zunno v Fein, 175 AD2d 935, 936). However, no evidence was presented which would rebut the strong presumption of regularity that a public officer has performed the duty imposed upon him by law with respect to the remaining 143 signatures (see, Matter of Rodriguez v Harris, 51 NY2d 737, 738; Matter of Caruso v Casciola, 27 NY2d 657, 658; Matter of Frazier v Leon, 186 AD2d 99, 100). Bracken, J. P., Copertino, Altman, McGinity and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In a proceeding to invalidate petitions designating Robert A. Bell as a candidate in a primary election to be held on [350]*350September 9, 1997, for the nomination of the Republican Party as its candidate for the public office of Member of the City Council of the City of New York for the 39th Council District, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Barasch, J.), entered August 14, 1997, which granted the application.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, the application is denied, the proceeding is dismissed, and the Board of Elections of the City of New York is directed to restore the name of Robert A. Bell to the appropriate ballot.

The Supreme Court erred in invalidating all of the signatures witnessed by a certain Commissioner of Deeds. The testimony adduced at trial supported the finding that the Commissioner failed to take the oath of three of the 146 signatories. These three signatures were properly invalidated (see, Matter of Boyle v New York City Bd. of Elections, 185 AD2d 953; Matter of Zunno v Fein, 175 AD2d 935, 936). However, no evidence was presented which would rebut the strong presumption of regularity that a public officer has performed the duty imposed upon him by law with respect to the remaining 143 signatures (see, Matter of Rodriguez v Harris, 51 NY2d 737, 738; Matter of Caruso v Casciola, 27 NY2d 657, 658; Matter of Frazier v Leon, 186 AD2d 99, 100). Bracken, J. P., Copertino, Altman, McGinity and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

242 A.D.2d 349, 661 N.Y.S.2d 265, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8376, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/odea-v-bell-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack